Reflections on the
Terrorism of September 11, 2001

By Ethan Lewis

On
this, the birthday of the United States Constitution, I find
myself reflecting a great deal on the recent terrorism which
so calamitously befell America. While the human tragedy is,
obviously, the most poignant aspect of this incident, I have
been spending most of my time thinking about the choices that
our Nation now faces.

To
me, the biggest threat these acts of terrorism pose to the
United States lay in the dilemma of choosing an appropriate
response. It seems to me that such a response could fall along
a wide continuum, but that essentially it boils down to two
options: revenge, or redress. America has always prided itself
as a nation governed by the rule of law. During the past
hundred years or so, this has been honored more in the breach
than in fact, but it is a conceit that pleases most Americans
to believe. Recent Presidents have responded to acts of
terrorism with violent retribution (the attack on Tripoli that
killed Gaddafi’s daughter [Reagan], the missile attacks on
Afghanistan [Clinton], and let’s not forget Bush pere’s
war
against Iraq, which has yet to abate after 10 years, and
has kept the United States on a permanent war footing, almost
invisibly to most of the citizens of what we like to think of
as our republic.

Although
the Constitution clearly gives to the Congress the sole right
to declare war, Congress has equally clearly relinquished this
right over the last 50 years. President Truman sent us into
Korea (another front in a never ceasing war) on the pretext of
supporting the UN (a concept that grows more laughable the
longer we go without paying our dues to that noble
organization). We fought (and lost) a major war in Vietnam on
the basis of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which ultimately
led to the War Powers Act (which should be unnecessary, but in
the end is just pointless, since it is never observed by
President or Congress). We invaded the island of Grenada to
kill some Cuban engineers, invaded Panama to illegally arrest
its head of state (our former favorite drug dealer), and have
maintained the war in Iraq on the strength of a resolution
(that barely passed the Senate) authorizing the first
President Bush to take any action he deemed necessary in
protecting our oil vendors.

On
September 11 , Mr. Bush’s son stated that an act of war had
been committed against America. Obviously forgetting that only
nations can commit acts of war (and ignoring the fact that no
nation is claiming responsibility for this attack) Bush
promised, and has continued to promise, to fight this war
wherever it leads us, for however long it takes, just as soon
as they can find someone to smack. Resident Bush (I will omit
the "P" until he can Persuade at least a Plurality of the
Public that he should be the President) seems eager to respond
to this act of extraordinary violence in a similarly violent
way.

This
predilection for violence is almost surprising, considering
that the Resident told us, before the Iowa caucus, that the
most influential person in his life was "the Lord, Jesus
Christ". Bush professes to devout Christianity, but seems
unwilling to turn the other cheek, as the Bible urges us.
After Pan Am flight 103 was exploded in Scotland, the
countries whose citizens were killed worked assiduously to
find the people responsible for planting the bombs, strove to
extradite them, and tried them in a Scottish court. This is
civilized. This shows the primacy of law in our society. On
Tuesday, Bush promised to "hunt down" the "folks responsible"
for the attacks. Obviously, the people directly responsible
are dead, killed in the airplane crashes. Who is left to find?
If there are ringleaders still at large, it seems to me that
the right thing for a peace-loving, law abiding country to do
is find them, and try them for conspiracy to commit murder
(and the lesser charges of hijacking, piracy, etc.). Instead,
Bush and the Congress have committed America to a long term
course of "war" against person or persons unknown. This
weekend, Congress passed a joint resolution granting the
Resident the right to take any action he felt appropriate to
get some revenge. They also passed a resolution granting $40
billion to address the terrorism. While the Office of
Management and Budget needs to spell out what they want the
money for before they get it, only half is statutorily
required to go to relief and reconstruction. Where will the
other $20 billion go?

Probably
to the erosion of our civil liberties. Much of the money will
go to buy mysterious boxes like the "Carnivore"
which the FBI
wants to put in the office of every Internet Service
Provider
to eavesdrop on Internet transmissions; or to other
means of
harassing people. The so called "intelligence" services will
probably also gain more resources to increase surveillance on
Americans. It is inevitable that domestic travel will be
subject to new restrictions and difficulties as a result of
the hijackings, and already people who appear to be of Middle
Eastern origin, or who worship Allah instead of Jesus have
been subject to persecution and it’s slightly more benign
twin, "profiling". At his most Fordian, Mr. Bush has promised
to "whip terrorism" now. But how is this to be done? How does
a society with open borders, paperless domestic travel, and a
free press stop an invisible enemy?

And,
the most serious question, though it will not be asked by our
unelected leaders (by which I refer to the corporate media, as
well as Mr. Bush) is, why do we have enemies? On Tuesday, Mr.
Bush said, "freedom was attacked", by the terrorists. Such a
rhetorical device does not attempt to deal honestly with the
fact that America and its bullying foreign policy is hated by
the greater part of the world’s people. America isn’t hated
because it is free; it is hated because it is the most
prominent rogue state in the world. The "sanctions" we inflict
on Iraq have been attributed to the deaths of over one million
Iraqi children in the past decade. Mr. Bush has threatened
Afghanistan for harboring the Bin Laden terrorists; but
America is the largest backer of the State of Israel, whose
brutal subjugation of the native population of its territory
has been censured by the world. (Many are unaware that the
United States’ permanent veto has saved Israel numerous times
from serious UN sanctions). Americans claim to honor the rule
of law, but Mr. Bush is single-handedly reneging on
international treaties, our country hasn’t paid it’s dues
(over a billion dollars) to the United Nations, and we have
backed out of the international war crimes agreement, because
the Pentagon doesn’t want to see its future Lt. Calley’s on
trial in the Hague.

What
is to be done? I wish that the leaders of America would act in
keeping with the values that they claim motivate the country.
I wish that instead of abrogating treaties (and using the
Supreme Court to steal elections) they would work to add
strength to a World Court that could mete out appropriate
sanctions to international lawbreakers. I wish that the
self-professed Christians who run our country would respond to
acts of violence not with more violence, but with love. Most
of all, I wish that Americans would see this abhorrent act not
as a random act of hate by fanatics, but as a response to
aggressive acts undertaken by our country. This can be a hard
perspective to take, but I think it is necessary. In 1991, I
was in Berlin, Germany staying with friends on the night that
the allied bombing of Baghdad started. My hostess was very
upset (like many Europeans, she was against the war for oil,
and like most Germans, she knew enough history to reject the
facile comparison of Hussein to Hitler). I came in for the
night, and saw her watching television. When I asked what was
happening, she said "You’re bombing Iraq". My initial reaction
was to deny any complicity, after all, I was against the war,
too. But I realized that as an American, the world held us
collectively responsible. Americans should try to pay more
attention to the deeds that are carried out in their name, and
participate in the political process that results in the
decisions that so enrage our neighbors. To my way of thinking,
nothing justifies violence, but it is important that we begin
to see these acts of terrorism as reactions to our foreign
policy, not random acts by lunatics who are enraged by
"freedom". Most of all, I wish that my fellow citizens would
see that violent reactions to violence do not solve problems,
but merely beget more violence. Making "war" on terrorism will
not make airliners or skyscrapers safer. For everyone's
safety, we should work to arrive at peaceful solutions based
on laws, empathy and compassion.